71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
anton bonnier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 10:23 pm
Okie... In trying to use my simplistic mind to solve the and save the earth (for humans ) I've decided, seeing it's humans that have caused the problem... It would be only right, that humans have to go. So forthwith all females must desist from having children until we are down to a level that the earth can sustain them... Or take the easy way out and pray, Iamb sure the mythical one would do something surely?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2007 09:21 am
anton bonnier wrote:
....I've decided, seeing it's humans that have caused the problem... It would be only right, that humans have to go. So forthwith all females must desist from having children until we are down to a level that the earth can sustain them


anton bonnier, I think you deserve credit for a proposal that would be sure to work......if instituted. The last part of that might be the sticking point.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Aug, 2007 09:38 am
Quote:
source: Discovery Channel
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:02 pm
It must drive some crazy: now the NOAA blames greenhouse gases as reason for the hot year. Manmade. Ts, ts.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 11:31 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Not quite a discovery you know Walter : for AGW proponents, global warming can only be good for what is bad and bad for what is good. :wink:
Proliferation can only come from shrub or pests, never nice polar bear or gentle grass. More rain can only fall in form of catastrophic flood never useful water for plants, more heat can only happen as murderous heatwaves, never as cheaper heating bills or less death due to cold winters ...
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 11:34 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
It must drive some crazy: now the NOAA blames greenhouse gases as reason for the hot year. Manmade. Ts, ts.

Hot year, which hot year, Walter ? Temperatures have remained stable for more than 5 years :
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tlt.png
Source : http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 02:56 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
It must drive some crazy: now the NOAA blames greenhouse gases as reason for the hot year. Manmade. Ts, ts.

Hot year, which hot year, Walter ? Temperatures have remained stable for more than 5 years :
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tlt.png
Source : http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
thats an upward trend or gradient and I know about gradients what do you mean stable?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 09:36 pm
I believe he is referring to just the past five years - as he indicated.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 10:01 pm
Agreed MiniTax, right now it looks like sort of a plateau, not going up or down, so anybody's guess which way its going. It looks like the trend line might need to be adjusted / replotted?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 01:52 am
Hi Steve, Okie,
The trend line for the last 10 years is essentially flat (see graphic with same satellite data than above) whereas atmospheric CO2 goes up 0,7%/year (human CO2 emissions go up 3% per year). The plateau of the last 5, 6 years is even rather unprecedented: you'll find none like this over the last 40 years in surface or satellite global temperature.
The "accelerating global warming" trumpeted by the media is NOT observed in temperatures reading !!!!

Added the recent bug in NASA temperature which has revealed that the USA has not warmed (the hottest years were in the 30s), no wonder why AGW proponents are so desperate to pass laws now. For them, it's now or never.

http://skyfall.free.fr/images/solarcorrelation_fig4.jpg
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 05:53 am
I'm not interested in passing laws. I'm only interested in observing what's happening to the earth.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:01 am
miniTAX wrote:
Hi Steve, Okie,
The trend line for the last 10 years is essentially flat (see graphic with same satellite data than above) whereas atmospheric CO2 goes up 0,7%/year (human CO2 emissions go up 3% per year). The plateau of the last 5, 6 years is even rather unprecedented: you'll find none like this over the last 40 years in surface or satellite global temperature.
The "accelerating global warming" trumpeted by the media is NOT observed in temperatures reading !!!!

Added the recent bug in NASA temperature which has revealed that the USA has not warmed (the hottest years were in the 30s), no wonder why AGW proponents are so desperate to pass laws now. For them, it's now or never.


MiniTAX, I am curious of your opinion in regard to CO2. Perhaps I have asked you before, but what is your best guess in regard to the steady little rise in CO2 each year, is it a driver to other climate effects or is it being driven by other effects? Do you see any evidence whatsoever that the trend line on CO2 will moderate or flatten out or do you think it will continue slowly upward for the next many years?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 10:12 am
okie wrote:
MiniTAX, I am curious of your opinion in regard to CO2. Perhaps I have asked you before, but what is your best guess in regard to the steady little rise in CO2 each year, is it a driver to other climate effects or is it being driven by other effects? Do you see any evidence whatsoever that the trend line on CO2 will moderate or flatten out or do you think it will continue slowly upward for the next many years?

That's a good question Okie. Problem is nobody knows.
The subject of CO2 atmospheric lifetime (which is the gist of how its future evolution would be) is highly controversial and the IPCC TAR says it's in the range of ... 5 to 200 years. Yes, the science is as bad as this.
After all, atmospheric methane has levelled for 10 years now and nobody, the IPCC first, had predicted it.
You may want to read the pov of Prof Segalstad here, particularly the fact that the IPCC must introduce the notion of "missing sink" to justify a long CO2 lifetime.

I find it outrageous that the science which is used to decree emission reduction targets and involving billions of $ can rely on arbitrary notions like the "missing sink" (which is recognized even by the Wood Hole which nobody could accuse of being skeptical). But hey, that's climate "science".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 10:31 am
It is broadly know that Segelstad's main academical interest lies in (his own words) "how CO2 simply cannot cause 'global warming' ".

I must admit that he's one of the few really hard working anti-climate change academics.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 02:06 pm
miniTAX, thanks for the linked article. I thought this quoted portion pretty well sums up the main point:

"Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction.""


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e&p=2
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 01:00 pm
president bush' chief scientist has come out with probably the strongest statement on global warming .
he has stated that global warming is man-made .
the major question remaining : how do we reduce or at least - for the time being - stabilize it ???
hbg

Quote:
Bush aide says warming man-made

By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News



The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.
Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.



(perhaps some might suggest that we wait until we are 100% certain ... and dead Shocked hbg)


The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".

His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at the UN and the Washington White House.

There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.


"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter"
Marburger interview

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.
"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

Trouble ahead

This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions.


"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable," he said.
Professor Marburger said he wished he could stop US emissions right away, but that was obviously not possible.

US backing for the scientific consensus was confirmed by President Bush's top climate advisor, James Connaughton.

The chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality told BBC News that advancing technology was the best way to curb the warming trend.

"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work," he said.

"I don't know of any politician that favours shutting down economies."
(would it really mean "shutting down the economy" - or is there an intermediate solution where we curb our energy appetite and reduce our economic expectations somewhat ?
the way i see it : if i'm driving my car at 150 kmh and if that is too fast for the road i'm driving on , it doesn't mean that i only have two choices .
one being to continue driving at 150 kph - perhaps killing myself - or stopping . another option is to drive at 100 kmh and surviving !
perhaps some might remember the 55 miles per hour speed limit in the united states - it didn't seem to be any great hardship for most people ; they still got to where they wanted to go - perhaps 10 minutes later .
hbg)


'Arbitrary' targets

Mr Bush has invited leaders of major developed and developing nations to the White House later this month for discussions on a future global direction on climate change.

It will follow a UN General Assembly session on the same issue.

Last week the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney backed the UN climate convention as the right body for developing future global policy.

The European Union wants such a policy to adopt its own target of stabilising temperature rise at or below 2C.

But Mr Marburger said the state of the science made it difficult to justify any particular target.

"It's not clear that we'll be in a position to predict the future accurately enough to make policy confidently for a long time," he said.

"I think 2C is rather arbitrary, and it's not clear to me that the answer shouldn't be 3C or more or less. It's a hunch, a guess."

The truth, he said, was that we just do not know what the 'safe' limit is.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

Published: 2007/09/14 11:52:26 GMT




source :
CHIEF PRESIDENTAL ADVISER : "GLOBAL WARMING MAN MADE ! "
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 09:35 pm
Could rivers of lava that are 2,150 degrees have anything to do with ocean temperatures?

http://www.iceagenow.com/Kilauea_rumbles_with_260_quakes.htm

And could as many as 3 million underwater volcanoes have any effect on the oceans and climate?

http://www.iceagenow.com/Three_Million_Underwater_Volcanoes.htm

Question, have historical variations or levels of volcanism, including on the ocean floor, ever been factored into climate models? Or do we even have a beginning knowledge or record of this activity?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 06:53 am
Here is an interesting article.
Ir raises some valid questions that have yet to be answered by the global warming theorists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/one_more_reason_to_distrust_gl.html
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 08:29 am
Rising Seas Likely to Flood US History

Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.

In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Global warming _ through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding _ is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians _ the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what _ the question is when."

Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."

This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.

Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.

And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.

All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.

The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.

This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands _ which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes _ are previews of what's to come there.

Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said.

"Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."

The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while.

"It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2007 09:04 am
mysteryman wrote:
Here is an interesting article.
Ir raises some valid questions that have yet to be answered by the global warming theorists.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/one_more_reason_to_distrust_gl.html


So, who is this fellow?
Quote:
Jerome J. Schmitt, President. Mr. Schmitt is a seasoned entrepreneur who is experienced in managing interdisciplinary teams. Mr. Schmitt holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Yale with concentration in fluid mechanics and gas dynamics. He was the founder of Jet Process Corporation and is the inventor of the Jet Vapor Deposition (JVD) process for thin films and coatings. More recently, Mr. Schmitt served as Vice President for Research and Development at MicroCoating Technologies Inc. (MCT), ChambleeGA; the third member to join MCT's management team, Mr. Schmitt helped guide the company's growth through strategic corporate alliances to nearly ten million in annual revenue with market cap ~$250 million. Mr. Schmitt is an expert in electronics materials and device. Mr. Schmitt is the lead inventor on five patents and two patents pending, he is author of 30 technical publications.
http://nanoengineeringcorp.com/Leadership.html

Jerome is on the receiving end of lovely taxpayer greenbacks, much of it from the Dept of Energy...
Quote:
2000 - $1,157,756
2001 - $465,544
2002 - $959,410
2003 - $100,000
2004 - $1,135,441
2005 - $1,189,590
total....... $5,007,741
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?recip_cat_type=f&recip_id=584822&sortby=u&detail=-1&datype=T&reptype=r&database=faads&fiscal_year=&submit=GO

Here's the first paragraph of another column by the fellow...
Quote:
Somewhere in the course of the evolution of the American Left and its party, the Democrats, the offering of formal apologies became an important political ritual. Most likely this grew out of the transition from an attitude of pride in America to an attitude of shame, a feeling that this country is the world's primary villain.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/democrats_and_apologies.html

and another...
Quote:
Both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales were pilloried by liberals in the left-wing press for trying to fulfill their official duty and advise the White House on a proper, constitutional response to the CIA's request for legal guidance on allowable methods to interrogate terrorist suspects.

The actual guidance provided by these Republican Attorneys General has never been revealed, of course, because they are legitimate state secrets, but this has not prevented the Mainstream Media from charging them with approving "torture". It is impossible for these men to defend themselves in the court of public opinion due to the secret nature of their legal advice. This circumstance has not prevented liberals from flogging them with this un-provable charge -- as well as all Republicans by association.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_medias_attorney_general_do.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:32:07